>> eric: i'm chri >> i'm chris wallace. former cia director tells congress what he knows about the benghazi attack. >> in a series of closed-door hearings, lawmakers investigate what happened before, during and after the assault that killed four americans. we will get the latest from the advice chair of the senate intelligence committee and joe leiberman, head of the homeland security committee. then republicans look to regroup after a disappointing election. does the party need a new message or better messengers? we will talk with two leading governors. bobby jindal of louisiana and scott walker of wisconsin. plus, the president and

congressional leaders try to pull back from the fiscal cliff. with 44 days and counting, we will ask our sunday panel can a deal be made in time? and our power player of the week, telling us softly with her song. all right now on fox news sunday. >> hello again from fox news in washington. we will talk with our guests in a moment but first an update on the tense military situation on the israel-gaza border. fox news correspondent leland is on the scene with the latest. >> chris, this there is no question this is a country on the brink of war. behind me or the tanks and armor personnel, waiting for the order to head into the gaza strip because the air strikes certainly have not stopped the rockets. they continue to fall all around israel. the iron dome intercept add number of rockets today but there have been a dozen israelis

injured on the attacks. on the gaza side of the border the israeli air strikes have continued pounding away for the fifth straight day. so far at least 70 palestinians dead, many of those civilians and a number of children. israelis officials say they have hit 1,000 targets so far and flat end much. hamas's infrastructure, including a pro hamas television station. the ground war is just getting ready. bulldozers are moving into fighting position. so far there are 30,000 reservists of that been drafted and awaiting the orders that could come anytime in the next 24 to 48 hours. the only thing preventing is is an envoy in cairo involved in peace talks and they are trying to bring about a cease-fire. chris, back to you in washington. >> he is reporting live from the

israel-gaza border. thanks for that. joining me now, two leading senators on national security issues. the advice chair of the intelligence committee and joe leiberman, head of the homeland security committee. before we get to the benghazi investigation, i want to ask you both about the growing conflict between the israel's and gaza. do you worry about a ground war in gaza, especially in this changing post arab spring middle east? >> ultimately obviously in the first instance to hamas, i don't think the israelis really want a ground war. they are only going to go into gaza if they feel they need to to eliminate the remainder of the missiles, a lot of them supplied by iran of that been coming over to israel. hundreds of them this year. so really the decision is up to hamas as to whether there will

be a ground invasion of gaza or not. remember what hamas is. it's not the palestinian authority, which is recognized the right of israel to exist and has diplomatic relation also with israel and us. it's a terrorist group sworn to the destruction of israel. it actually seized power in a coo from the palestinian authority. they have to defend their people and their nation. >> but senator chambliss, obviously the situation all over the middle east has changed dramatically in the last year. egypt is no run by a dictator, it's run by the muslim brotherhood. should president obama put more pressure on the egyptian government, even threat tone cutoff aid to get hamas to stop firing those rockets? >> he needs to exert every kind of pressure he can to try to make sure it doesn't escalate into a full-blown war between

the palestinians and the israelis. whatever that takes. the problem the israelis have is that these rockets are being fired on them from places they can't reach by flying over in the air. they are putting them in school yards where they are surrounded by school children and they are firing them from marketplace that is are crowded with people. israel has a right to protect its self. if sending ground troops in is the only way they can clean out these nests of rockets being fired at them, you know, you can't blame them for doing it. >> all right. let's turn to benghazi. both of you held closed-door hearings this week with top administration officials. and david petraeus reportedly said in these closed-door hearings that while he always believed that terrorists were behind the attack, that the administration watered down the talking points that susan rice ended up using because they didn't want to tipoff the terrorists that they were on to them.

let me start first of all with you, senator chambliss, because you were in one of those closed-door hearings. one, did he say it, and if so, do you believe it? >> petraeus did not say that in those words, chris, and i did not interpret anything he said to be that. gen. petraeus, number one, is obviously a great man and a great leader, both from a military standpoint and with also his civilian role with the cia. what he did say is that from day one we knew it was a terrorist attack. and there was no question about it. you don't bring automatic weapons and rpgs and mortors to a so-called demonstration. there sil are some questions that are yet to be answer bad the planning of this, whether it was done over a period of time or whether it was truly a spontaneous reaction. there's no indication now that it was anything other than a planned attack. >> but do you have an understanding as to why the talking points changed over the

course of that first week? the white house said yesterday they made one change in the talking points and that was the change the word consulate to diplomatic facility. >> it was kind of interesting, chris. at the hearing we had on thursday and friday, we had every leader of the intelligence community there, including folks from the state department, the fbi, everybody there was asked do you know who made these changes? and nobody knew. the only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there was the white house. so that -- you know, i don't know whether -- what they said yesterday is exactly right or not, but what i do know is that every member of the intelligence community said that references to al-qaeda were removed by somebody and they don't know who. and references to attacks versus demonstrations were removed by somebody. >> let me ask you a question.

will your committee, call on excuse son rice to ask her to testify? >> i don't know the answer to that right now. we will talk about that. we have two more hearings scheduled. >> do you think she will be called? >> she's going to have to come in and of it at some point. whether it's in a closed hearing or open hearing. we will have an open hearing too but at some point she needs to come in and say what the president or the white house directed her to say. >> senator leiberman, dianne feinstein, the democratic chair of the senate intelligence committee, read the unclassified talking points to reporters and she says that they show that susan rice was j stick to go the talking points. do you buy that? >> yeah, i've looked at the talking points. our committee heard testimony from the intelligence committee. very important to say here that during that first week after the attack on our mission in benghazi, the initial opinion,

and they kept saying it was initial, of the intelligence community was that there had been a protest before the terrorist attack. nobody could deny it, as saxby said it was a terrorist attack and that's what the talking points reflected. whether it used names like al-qaeda oral sharia. i just say we look at what the intelligence community was saying that week and i look at ambassador rice's statements on television on the following sunday morning, i don't find anything inconsistent between those two. but i must tell you that i think we are focusing on questions that are not insignificant but they aren't the most significant. of course, there was a terrorist attack. whether or not there was a protest before it is interesting, but not that critical to me. there was a terrorist attack. the question is who did it and then, much more important for the long run, why in the midst

of a rising crescendos ever intelligence that made clear that al-qaeda and a bunch of radical groups were coming into eastern libya in the surrounding of benghazi, did we leave our state department personnel there without security? and why when they were attacked did our defense department not have resources anywhere nearby to come to their defense? i mean, long run, those are the critical questions. >> i want to ask both of you a series of questions in this regard because you do hole these closed-door hearings this week with all the top officials. and i'm going to try to ask you to do it in a lightning round, quick answers, questions questions and somebody said good luck with that. senator leiberman, after meeting with top -- this isn't quite to the point but i promise you we will get that. after meeting with top fbi officials this week, are you satisfied with their decision not to notify congress and the white house about the investigation of general

petraeus's affair until as late as they did, which is last week? >> you know, i still have questions about that. i think, first, you have to acknowledge that the fbi has developed a very important cyber security capacity, which is important to our country. second, they got this -- >> we are on lightning rod. >> all right. i haven't answered that to my satisfaction yet. in other words, i understand why they would keep an fbi investigation confidential from everybody until they saw there was a crime, but this suddenly involved two of our highest-ranking generals, petraeus and allen. and i think that was a different circumstance. i still have an inclination to believe that somebody should have notified the white house of that early in the investigation. >> senator chambliss, are you satisfied that this personal affair involving gen. petraeus did not affect either, one, the way he conducted the whole benghazi matter, and, two, his

testimony to congress back in september or this week? >> i see nothing to indicate that that had any impact on his decisions that he made relative to benghazi or any other issue, for that matter. >> and nothing -- no impact on his temperature? >> no. >> a suggestion perhaps he was towing the line in september to try to keep his job? >> no. i don't think there was any testimony his temperature on friday of that. he's always been straightforward and he was straightforward on friday. >> all right. senator chambliss, and this is one of the issues that senator leiberman was raising, with all the warnings beforehand, who due now feel is responsible with the failure -- for the failure to beef up security at the benghazi consulate before the attack ever happened? >> i think that's a question yet to be answered, chris. we've got to get some state department officials in to really explain why you send an ambassador basically unguarded with a few libyan guards and the

cia was not there to guard him. >> didn't you ask him? >> we have the right person coming in for our next hearing to talk about that. i'm sure that joe and susan will do likewise. but we have to find out from the state department about why decisions were made relative to the security. they were obviously inadequate, grossly inadequate. >> let me ask both of you in this regard. secretary clinton has not testified. >> she has agreed to testify and she needs to. >> it's very important. look, what we know now about the intelligence of the terrorists who were in the vicinity of benghazi, in my opinion it was irresponsible to have our state department personnel there with only three security guards. they were easily overrun in the attack of september 11th. either we should have given them the protection they deserved or

we should have closed that mission in benghazi, as the british government had done a short while before. the second point is really an important one. we are cutting back in supporting our defense. during the war in libya against gadhafi, we had ships offshore. if those ships were still there they could have sent resources to knockout the second round of terrorists attack. >> let me ask you that. during the seven hours between the terrorists first attack on the consulate and the second attack on the an numbers, given the force wes had on the ground, could u.s. forces have done more to realistically to protect the u.s. forces and -- the u.s. personnel and have prevented the last two? >> it goes to preventing the last two former seals from being killed. the answer is we didn't have resource necessary range. they acted quickly, but they had to get somebody from spain,

somebody from key asia -- from croatia. they arrived much too late. they sent a drone but it was an unarmed drone. if we had an armed drone in that dangerous part of the world it probably could have knocked out the people firing the mortors that killed the two seals. >> but given what we had there. >> there was though capacity to defend our personnel in a timely way once the attack occurred. we can't let that happen again. and part of what we have to do to make sure it doesn't happen again is we adequately support our defense budget. >> one question there, too, was that dod's fault or the state's fault? >> we don't know the answer. >> and finally, and we have about a minute left, senators mccain and graham this week called for a special congressional committee to investigate benghazi. let's take a look at what graham had to say. >> watergate investigation benefited from a joint select committee.

iran contra benefited from a select committee. >> i want to ask you, you both briefly, do you think that we need, and let me start first with you, senator chambliss, do we need a special committee or can your standing committees do it? >> these two guys are two of my best friends and two of joe's best friends. we travel a lot together to some very dangerous places. but the committees within the united states senate are very capable of investigating this in the right way and this is one time i have a slight disagreement with my good friends. >> yeah, i respectfully separate from my two amigos on this one and agree with saxby. this was a tragedy, but it doesn't rise to the level of 9/11, position 01. if some reason if they think when we are done we haven't done a good enough job, they can think about a special committee. >> you are retiring from congress at the end of the year,

24 years and there's been some speculation. i know you haven't been that close to this president, but there has been some speculation. has there been any talks with the adm taking over the top spots at state, at defense, at cia, any talks about it in and do you have any interest? >> the answer is, no, there have been no talks. second, it's not what i'm planning for the next chapter of my life. but really as i've always said before when this has come on. when a president of the united states asks you to serve your country that i love, and believe in toe deeply, you have to give it serious consideration. but i'm not waiting by the phone. i don't expect the call. >> he's got my vote for confirmation on any of the above. we are going to miss this guy. >> senator leiberman, no more. but you may be back here in a few months as secretary leiberman. >> that would surprise me. but it would always be good to be with you on the fair and balanced fox sunday show. >> there you go, senator. i wasn't angling for that. >> that was voluntary.

>> senator chambliss, thank you going. we will say on benghazi and the conflict in gaza. thank you both. >> thank you. >> up next, two leading republican governors take a hard look at what their party needs to do before it faces voters again. ♪

[ male announcer ] it started long ago. the joy of giving something everything you've got. it takes passion. and it's not letting up anytime soon. at unitedhealthcare insurance company, we understand that commitment. and always have. so does aarp, an organization serving the needs of americans 50 and over for generations. so it's no surprise millions have chosen an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they help cover some of the expenses medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to find out more, request your free decision guide. call or go online today. after all, when you're going the distance, it's nice to have the experience and commitment to go along with you. keep dreaming. keep doing. go long.

to go along with you. (car horn) paying with your smartphone instead of cash... (phone rings) that's a step forward. with chase quickpay, you can send money directly to anyone's checking account. i guess he's a kicker... again, again! oh, no you don't! take a step forward and chase what matters.

>> after a disappointing election day it's no surprise the the republicans would do some soul searching. but what is a surprise is how quickly it's happening. we are talking about bobby jindal, the new chair of the republicans governors association from baton rouge. and from wisconsin, scott walker, the new advice chair. this week mitt romney in a

conference call with big donors attributed his defeat to president obama giving out gifts to minorities and young people. governor jindal, you reacted very sharply to that. let's take a look. >> the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government. >> i absolutely reject that notion, that description. >> we've got to stop being the stupid party. what i mean by that, we have to stop making stupid comments. >> governor, what was stupid about what romney said? >> well, two things. first, gov. romney is an honorable and exceptional man. i'm proud to campaign for him across this country but i absolutely project what he said. we as a republican party have to campaign for every single vote. if we want people to like us, we have to like them first. you don't start to like people by insulting them by saying their votes were bought.

let the democratic party say -- we believe our print pells are good for every voter. we are going to vince and fight for every single vote, showing them we are the party for the middle class, upward mobility. we don't start winning majorities and elections by insulting the voters. >> governor walker, i want to you take a look at this exit poll from election night. who is more in touch with people like you? 53% said obama, 43% said mitt romney. question, how do republicans convince the middle class that you are looking out for them? >> well, i think you see it in the governor ships. we now, in a nation that went for a democrat for president, you now have 30 states that have republican governors because there is a trust factor there. i share the same belief that bobby mentioned, as well, we need to be a party that doesn't

just talk about it, we go out and actively take the message, i think a winning message, one we won on in each of the states where there were republican governors. but we take it and go out to where people are. we have a message that works for young people that's correct works for people who come from our country, from other countries. basically anyone who wants to live the piece of the american dream we have to show we are serious about reaching out and helping everyone, not just a group here or a group, there but everyone in this country live their piece of the american dream and i think that starts with our governors as great messengers. >> governor jindal, about what the debate going on in washington right now about the fiscal cliff. president obama says let's extend the bush tax cuts, the lower tax rates for 98% of all taxpayers, including the middle class right now. i'll sign it today and took out his pen at the news conference. and the republicans saying, no, no, no, we can't do that until we decide what we are going to do with the top two percent of

taxpayers. why wouldn't a middle class voter look at that and say these guys in the gop are all about protecting the rich? >> chris, two things. one, we as a republican party need to make it very clear, and we are going to make it very clear we around the party of big. business businesses, big banks, big wall street, big bailouts. when it comes to the tax code, we are for a lower, simpler, platter tax code. you there were ideas to limit deductions for the wealthy, there have been ideas to get rid of some of these things but we aren't the party trying to broke the rich. they can protect themselves. we are the party that wants pro growth period. let the democratic party be the party of government growing revenues. we want to grow the private sector of the economy and that starts with low, flatter, simpler tax code. it can still be progressive. there are ideas to get rid of these special treatments, to limit the deduct ducks for the wealthy. but when it comes to the fiscal cliff, i was in congress.

i guarantee if he this just put a bandaid on this we will be in others fiscal cliff a few months from now. we need structure changes. that could be a balanced budget. and a limit on the growth in government spending so we can't grow faster than the economy or population growth. limbing government spending as a percentage of gdp. without those structural changes we're aren't getting anywhere. this is just kicking the can down the road. and let's also be clear, this country doesn't need two liberal or democratic parties. we have to show our polls are appealing and work for the middle class but we don't need to abandon our principles. we don't need two democratic parties. >> look at it, when the pen is holding up his pen and saying i'll sign extending tax cuts, lower taxes which is a republican mantra for 9 8% of americans and the republicans are saying not so fast, bill crystal was on this show last week and he said it wouldn't kill the republicans to raise taxes on millionaires a also bit. is he wrong?

>> well, i think you look at the contrast between washington and what is happening in each of our state houses. the vast majority of us who were two governors two years ago inherited major budget deficits in our states. we balanced them raising taxes. in states like wisconsin we cut taxes the past two years and revenues have gone up. most americans, not just in politics, most look at what is happening in washington and think they are missing the boat. don't get me wrong, i think they need to balance the budget and take care of the physical issues, but more important importantly, we need to get the economy going and get he people back to work and that disproportionately affects the middle class right now and the fact they are talking about anything that would make it worse with the economy it's a bad sign of what is happening in washington. >> let's talk briefly. i run into a time crunch here in a minute. i will ask you for quick answers on a couple of specifics groups. the problems that your party had on election day with hispanics has been well documented.

1% voted for owe -- 71% for obama, 27% for romney. governor walker, does your party need to rethink where it stands on the dream act and the whole issue of the 11 million illegals who are currently in this country? >> oh, i think we need to fine a way to move forward on this. i think we want more people who want to live the american dream. this country is based on immigrants. we have to find a way to welcome all of our immigrants in and all who want to live that piece of the american dream. before i was governor i was an executive and the stories that i won every hispanic ward in the county where i was a county executive, why? because i had a message that met with everything. parents wanted their kids to prevail and get the opportunity they deceive. these are things we need to be talking about. if we share that message with all the voters we will do better whether it's his span >>, young voters or other voters, we will do well because we have a message for prosperity

and freedom for all. >> and let's take a look at unmarried women who backed obama by a wide margin, by 67% to 31%. governor, you say to republicans, don't change your principles, modernize. don't moderate. but you have to know that during this campaign the democrats hammered your party when it came to freedom of choice on abortion, when it came to access to birth control, when it came to funding of planned parenthood. how do you convince unmarried women that you are looking out for them? >> chris, a couple things. one, i think we can still be true to our principles. i'm pro life. i follow the teaches of my church and faith. but at the same time we can be respectful of those who disagree. we need to respect others have come to different conclusions based on their own sincerely held beliefs. we don't need to ninize. we have of had candidates in

missouri and others that not only hurt themselves and lost two senate seats but hurt the republican party across the board. i think we can be true to our principles. we don't need to pander. but we can be respectful. you mentioned when a majority of voters in this election think the democratic party is more like toy cut tacks to the middle class than the republican party, we have a problem. and not only single women but others, we have a serious problems making sure voters understand what we as a party stand for, the principles we are pursuing. once we get back on track we are the party fighting for the middle class, it helps female voters and hispanics and every voter out there. >> we have less than a minute left. both of you have decided not to set upstate healthcare exchanges under eye obama care but rather to let the feds come in and do it." i guess the question i have is, would you agree that at this point with the president re-elected, obamacare is here to

say? >> it is the law and we made that clear. the difference is that we pointed out in our states and i think bobby feelings the same in his and including some democrats feel like the options we are given to comply with the law, state run partnership or defer to the federal government, the state run option is only state in name only. it provides all the same stipulations. utah is a state that has antone exum change can't even go ahead and use their exchange to qualify for the federal program. so in the end if it's state name only we would rather have the federal government do it as much it pains us living in federalism. in the end it's better they do it and not incur additional tax it the taxpayers cost expose us it. we have to leave it there. there is obviously lots more to talk about. we will have you back to do it and where you take the party in the coming mass, thank you. >> thank you. >> up next, israel prepares for a possible invasion of gaza, and

we will have what is at stake for u.s. security in both areas when we come back. ♪ [ gordon ] for some this line is a convenience. how you doing today? i'm good thanks. how are you? i'm good. [ gordon ] but for others, it's all they can afford. every day nearly nine million older americans don't have enough to eat. anything else? no, not today. join me, aarp, and aarp foundion in the drive to end hunger

by visiting drivetoendhunger.org.

>> we will continue to exercise prudence and self restraint while defending our citizens against terrorism. >> israeli prime minister netten yahoo making it clear his government will not allow hamas to keep firing rockets into israel. >> and we have bill and bob woodworth and kimberly of the wall street journal and charles lane from the washington post. i think we would all agree when militants are reigning missiles down on your country, any government is going to defend themselves. on the other hand, bill, when israel invaded gaza four years ago it went three weeks, more than a thousand palestinians are

killed. how tough a call for netanyahu to go in and decide whether to go in on the ground in gaza? >> i think they will rather not. if they can deter the launching of these missiles i think they would love to do it without a ground invasion. the big difference this time, one difference this time is the position of the obama administration, which began in 2009 seeking to distance itself name usually from israel and ending its first term supporting israel which is an interesting evolution on the point of obama and in my view a hopeful one. >> there were a couple other differences. one is hamas has longer range missiles than four years ago and the middle east of 2012 is different than the middle east of 2008. we have the arab spring, egypt is no longer run by a dictator but leaders of the muslim brotherhood. what are the challenges for israel and the u.s. now? >> if you look at the whole foreign policy portfolio that

obama is facing, not just the problem in gaza, but we still have the problem with pakistan, iran, egypt and libya is still not a stable situation. i think it only amplifies the problem that this is a really dangerous world, and i think part of obama's struggle in the coming months and year is going to get some hold on exactly what our policies are, what is the degree of toughness that we are going to employ because i think that's still in doubt. >> let's turn to benghazi. congressional committees held a flurry of closed-door hearings this week. what did we learn about administration actions before, during and after the attack? >> well, we are hearing a whole range of interesting excuses as to why we had these different comments in the beginning, about whether or not this was the video, whether or not this was a terrorist attack. you have now heard this argument

that maybe it was a hybrid that's correct there was actually initially a protest in cairo but this inspired the militants to arc. in benghazi you also heard a lot of talk about whether or not susan rice was talking from classified or unclassified talking points. and another theory they knew it was terrorism all along but watered it down because they wanted more time to pursue who it actually was. the bottom line is a week after this happened the administration sent susan rice to say this was the video. even though it's now pretty clear they knew all along it wasn't. and that we request has not been answered even as a result of these hearings. and those are going to have to be one of the big questions going forward. will it involve her testifying? >> john? >> we may never get to the bottom of this question of the discrepancy between the facts and the talking points. i would point out the president said at the debate, memorably, i said it was a terrorism attack the next day in the rose garden. remember that. so there's even a kind of so what quality about determining whether susan rice didn't call

it one. real issue that i don't think a whole lot of light has been shed on this last week is what were the failures that went into the vulnerability of this diplomatic facility in the first place. everyone agrees that's the real issue. and nothing that i have seen that came out of this hearing clarifies very much what went wrong with the preparations, why wasn't that place secure. and what does it tell us about the whole approach of the light footprint that the obama administration has recommended. >> explain what that means. i must say i haven't heard that phrase until today but it's in the papers. >> the idea that once we had gadhafi out in libya, we weren't going to go in with a new big presence, we were going to do more with less, as it were. >> not just in libya, all over. >> and being applied across the region. >> it's interesting, up to this point secretary of state clinton has kind. avoided much fire on libya.

she said that she was taking responsibility for it, but that was in the middle of the night at an interview down in south america and she has so far been absent for these hearings. as they focus maybe less on the timeline and more on the question of why these diplomats were so undefended, were so vulnerable with all the warnings beforehand, could secretary clinton come under fire here? >> she will have to answer questions but i imagine she'll say they didn't realize how vulnerable as they were and i think the honestly think the cia didn't want a big diplomatic footprint in benghazi." they were running a complicated situation out of the an exthere and maybe they shouldn't have taken the risk of going to against. but i'm not sure that part of the situation, ultimately or obviously it it was a mistake. secretary clinton will leave office and one viking thing and bob raced the question of president obama's foreign

policies ahead. he will have to deal with an entirely new team. he came in and put hillary clinton as secretary of state, inherited bob gates and inherited gen. petraeus and put him afghanistan and cia and now he has to fill those positions and see who can help him deal with these challenges. >> bob, as one who has more than a passing acquaintance with scandals, where do you think the so-called libya scandal is now? >> i think there are serious unanswered questions but the suggestion they should have watergate style, independent special committees to investigate this, i don't see that yet because the question seems to be what did susan rice know and when did she know it? which falls not very high on the scale of do we really need to get to the bottom of this? i kind of disagree with chuck. i think we will find out what happened and i think we should. and you never know what this is

going to show. but the real issue is libyan policy. you know, what are we going to do with this country that -- we don't know what the future is. and a light footprint might be the answer, it might not be the answer. you know, so this is all going to be mixed up. but i don't think, you know, a new sam irvin is going to appear on the scene or a howard baker to investigate this. it does not, at least to this point, you don't know what you don't know fall on that scale. >> all right. we have to take a break here. when we come back, the president and congressional leaders meet on the fiscal cliff. and surprise, they come out sounding optimistic. but are they really?

>> my hope is that this is going to be the beginning of a fruitful process where we are able to come to an agreement that will reduce our deficit. >> we are serious about cutting spending and solving our fiscal dilemma. and i believe that we can do this and avert the fiscal cliff that is right in front of us today. >> president obama and speaker boehner sounding upbeat friday about prospects for cutting a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. we are back with the panel. after the congressional leaders and the president met at the white house on friday the rhetoric was reassuring. the question is is it real? do you get the sense, bob, that really do see or are beginning to see a path to a compromise are they they just trying to calm nervous investors because

the stock market is going down a thousand points? >> everyone is nervous about this. this is kind of the last chance. the next six weeks could be six weeks that shook the united states if they don't fix this. there clearly is a new mood, but the way they are going to solve this is kind of hostage exchange. in other words, the republicans are determined not to let tax rates go up. the president is determined or is determined to get more revenue. and it's possible to do this. the president is going along, it seems, with some idea of entitlement reform that we are going to actually cut spending. but this is, you know, they are going to have to -- they are at loggerheads on this tax issue. and i'm not sure how they fix that. the new mood is not enough. you have to sit down and do the numbers. >> well, we are going to have

kim explain that. she works for the wall street journal. that's the big sticking point, taxes. i was surprised right after the election we will put more revenue on the table but we will do it by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions and the president said no, you have to raise tax rates on the wealthy. how do they resolve that in six weeks? >> it all depends on whether or not the president is willing to bend. there is reason for optimism here because for the first time we have a framework. for years democrats have been saying you have to give us some revenue and as you said right after the election boehner came out and said, okay, have some revenue. but the president has moved the goalpost and said it isn't just revenue, it has to be a certain kind. my liberal base -- >> wait, wait. he did mention this once or twice during the campaign. >> but the question is are you going to stick on what you campaigned on or are you going to find a compromise? the reality is if you are

looking for votes in congress, john boehner may get enough people to go along to do a deal for closing deducts and loopholes. he's not going to be able to get his people to go along on raising rates. there's the rhetoric the president engaged in on the campaign and then there is the reality of washington and he will have to compromise to some degree if he wants to deal. >> does he have to compromise or do the republicans have to compromise? >> i don't understand, first of all, where the republicans think they have a whole lot of leverage here. you have seen that in the comments by not only boehner but elsewhere, and they are essentially capitulating on revenue. okay, we will let there be more revenue. what the president is doing now makes sense. kim may disagree but -- >> take them over the cliff? >> no. okay, you say you have more revenue, show me how. show me some details. not enough for banner to say, okay, there will be more revenue. he's squeezing them. he's making them sweat a little

bit. that's negotiations, that's normal, that's natural. i don't think it's irresponsible, as you say. and now whether that's going to ultimately result in an agreement or not in a big picture the next six weeks, i doubt. but at least it's possible they will get to some kind of transitional thing that will carry us over into the next year without the big scare. >> low and behold, chris, bainner offered more revenue last year. made it very clear, $800 billion over ten years. that's essentially what they are discussing now. what they have to do in the next six weeks is come up with what they call a down payment, where they are going to do some spending cuts, they are going to do something to get more revenue in a way that will be acceptable to both sides. that is a hard plan to devise, quite frankly. >> what came out of the meeting friday is a two step compromise. a down payment, $50 billion

perhaps by the end of the year and a promise with some triggers that they would achieve a grand bargain, we've heard that word before, next year. major tax reform, major entitlement reform. bill crystal, how realistic is that two-step approach? >> i think it's pretty realistic. there will be a deal by december 31st, i believe. i believe democrats will yield on top rates. president obama ran twice on this platform and he won, the last i looked, on both presidential elections. >> you made a lot of news last week and you said it wouldn't hurt the republicans to raise the top. and you were not cited by name by the president. >> that was bad. that was a bad moment. but you have to persevere even when these things happen. >> what was the reaction among republicans? >> the private reaction of the republican congress was honestly on the very conservative once, i don't know, do we have to give in in? maybe it was good you said that

because we have to cut a deal. >> he didn't raise rate in 2009 when we were in the midst of a horrible downtown. and the republicans were able to bargain to a status quo deal. i don't think the republicans have the leverage or it's worth using whatever leverage they have to maintain rates at 35% instead of 37 or 38, especially if you take it up to millionaires. i don't think it's important enough as a matter of policy. then the big dole has to be big tax reform with lower rates. >> 30 seconds left, bob. this is the subject of your book. how optimistic are you that they make a deal and avert the fiscal cliff? >> let's hope they do but they will burn bill crystal's tea party card in talk like this. you are off the reservation >> a lot of the tea party don't care that much it a few millionaires pay a little more in taxes, honestly. >> but you are optimistic? >> you have to be because if it isn't fixed we will have a global catastrophe. >> on that happy note, always like that global discussions.

we will pick up with a discussion on our website. we will post a video before noon eastern time and make sure to follow us on twitter@foxnewssunday. up next our power player of the week. daughter really wants that pink castle thing. and you really don't want to pay more than you have to. only citi price rewind automatically searches for the lowest price. and it finds one, you get refunded the difference. and register your purchase online. have a super sparkly day! ok. [ male announcer ] now all you need is a magic carriage. citi price rewind. buy now. save later.

>>. >> chris: she has been part of soundtrack of our lives for more than 40 years. her songs of love and loss reflect her own life. here is our power player of the week. >> i'm still here. >> at age 73. roberta flack is still here. still cap elevate go audiences with her magical voice and music. it started so easily.

back in 1973 she won the grammies for song of the year first time ever, i saw your face. >> chris: what was that like to hit it big? >> scary, frightening and unbelievable. is this me? >> chris: year later she won the grammies again for "killing me softly." two years in row roe you have the song of the year and record of the year did you think it's going on forever? >> you always do, why not? >> chris: she stopped recording. three years you didn't release an album. >> i don't think i had anything to say. >> chris: she had serious throat problems but as she says, she is still here. 40 years after her big break she has released beatle songs,

inspired by living next to john lennon. >> the a wall of my computer room was the wall of his computer room. >> it's hard to imagine hard to imagine her journey. she grew up in northern virginia but started piano lessons at age nine. six years later she had a music scholarship to howard university. >> what are you doing in college at the age of 15? >> i don't know. i could have gotten there at 14 but they said i was too short. >> chris: flack was classicly trained. six years ago she started the roberta flack school of music and charter school in the bronx. >> you can become the next

beyonce or barbra streisand. >> she still takes voice lessons ♪ >> you keep polishing 8 the tool. you keep warming it up and shining it and making it brighter. i wanted to sing until i can't sing anymore and play until i can't play anymore. >> chris: the excitement when you get on the stage? >> the song. ♪ >> chris: she hopes to open more music schools here in washington and in barbedos and she intends to keep on singing. this program note, next sunday, john mccain joins us to discuss the libya investigation and fiscal cliff and more. we hope you'll tune in. have a great thanksgiving. we'll s